A quick look-see shows rubber tracks, Kongsberg RWS and the press release talks about these vehicles being fully digitized.
One thing is for certain. The crew is going to have a world class view of the battlefield.
If I'm not mistaken this is going to have the same hunter killer setup as our Abrams tanks. It really looks like both the gunner and the TC are going to have individual electro-optical sights to search for, designate and then kill targets. I'm heading off on a tangent here but if the US Army is serious about getting the 82nd Airborne a tank then the CV90-120 with a similar electronics package might just be the ticket.
Update: I've been informed that...
Kongsberg weapon station with sophisticated sensors which gives an alternative surveillance/target acquisition system which can be controlled from the crew compartment as well as by the commander or gunner.Very interesting. So the infantry commander has the capability of getting a birdseye view from inside the vehicle before he dismounts? Additionally he can direct fire at targets of interest for his men...not just relying on the skill and knowledge of the TC? Sweet.
Very intresting. I like how the Vehicle Commander (VC) the Gunner and the Troop Commander (TC) can all three be looking around. we looked at something similiar for the EFV so the TC (who sat up front for some dumb reason) could have a camera that would allow him to show the troops in the back (via flat screens) the intended target and to write text to say what actions would be taken. I also like how it gives the TC the ability to use the weapon system or even a rear crewman so that the gunner and VC can focus on their jobs and you still have the RWS being operated efficently.
ReplyDeleteGreat upgrade! To bad we cant get something like this for the AAV
Just read the part about sights and displays for infantry squads here:
Deletehttp://www.psm-spz.com/index.php?id=sichtkonzept&L=1
Why not similar upgrades for the Bradley? It would be cheaper and faster in Lima, Ohio, than going through Congress for a new program. Just a SLEP prgram.
ReplyDeleteBAE is already telling the Army that if they strip off the Turret of the Bradley and let them make a few mods then they have a cheap, AMPV sitting in storage but the Army doesn't appear interested.
DeleteArmy knows they are stuck with the brad since they failed to create a replacement once again. Unless they have an extra 2000+ Bradleys in storage to convert. I wouldn't recommend it due to the Bradleys hull survivability. Aluminum hulls are no good these days. Once that vehicle catches fire there is almost nothing left of it. I would take a cv-9035 hull instead. Makes me wonder why only BAE and Gen Dyn are the only companies competing for this contract.
DeleteThe Bradley is a polished turd. It wasn't good to begin with and it has barely kept pace even with its improvements in protection (the ones that were actually implemented). It is a 40 yr old design and is outclassed by newer IFVs in protection and lethality.
DeleteI really don't trust Big Army to procure anything of value. Look at the wreckage they've left behind: Scout helo replacement, camouflage pattern, carbine replacement, Farsical Combat System, GCV, etc.
Countries that spend way less on procurement are making us look bad. This nation is on the wrong track.
ReplyDeleteIt makes you wonder why were not buying this stuff. I think the CV90 & the CV90T120 would be perfect for the US Army.
ReplyDeletePoint of contention, those are not rubber tracks, they are steel tracks with a rubber "shoe" fitted to them. Most tanks I know use them so that they don't damage the roads they travel on, they are removed once the tanks get to the field. The CV90 does seem to have a rubber tracks option, but this photo doesn't show it.
ReplyDeleteThe GCV was a boondoggle that thankfully got killed. Heavy as a main battle tank because of the armor requirement, but without the offensive punch. The Army would do just as well buying double v hulled strikers and using them the way the Italians use the Centauro family of IFV's. Some with 105 turrets, some with 25mm turrets, some pure infantry carriers. All at a weight cost savings over the Bradley chassis.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side of that, for cheap you could pull the turrets on some Brads to make a 9 man dismount IFV, put a 105 turret on a Brad for a light tank, and a 155 arty turret, and make a Brad pure Armored Infantry Bbrigade Combat Team for cheap. Lots of punch and maneuverability with a streamlined logistical support footprint.
There are a lot of options to build good, tactically balanced formations in the Army. Just need someone to get the stakeholders involved to agree to the compromise. For example the Armor community will do anything to protect the M1 Abrams, and so would fight tooth and nail to avoid a light/medium tank unless it also opens up 19K slots to grow the branch...